not that I recall, but that doesn't mean these peoples didn't understand chemistry.I am quite satisfied discussing the topic with you despite your reference to my academic achievement.furthermore, are you going to suggest that it was not possible that these people developed and used chemicals and processes for managing those chemicals that you may or may not understand given your academic achievement?

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

None, if you are not going to discuss this rationally, then get out of the thread. I asked whether you'd taken chemistry before because you are making statements that are based on an ignorance of chemistry. That sort of behaviour is the chemistry equivalent of a creationist asking why we havn't found a Crockoduck fossil yet.

I'm not dismissing the possibility entirely, none. But if you like your hypothesis, then you need to argue it rationally and honestly, instead of falling back on crap like this. I'm waiting for a reasoned response to this post:

So you're suggesting that they found a mixture of chemicals that ate away at both hornblende and plagioclase feldspar at exactly the same rate, produced this mixture in industrial quantities to react with a large amount of rock, found a way to control its rate and distribution of administration to the rock so that they could create fine features with it without mistake?

That kind of expert chemistry would be just as impressive as, if not more impressive than, the development of machine tools.

EDIT: Keep in mind that it's not a simple matter of mixing chemical A that works 2x as fast on a mineral, with twice as much chemical B that works 1x as fast on the other mineral. Not only does the prevalence of each mineral vary across the stone, but some very sophisticated knowledge of chemical kinetics is needed to account for how each chemical will speed/slow the effect of the other.

So you're suggesting that they found a mixture of chemicals that ate away at both hornblende and plagioclase feldspar at exactly the same rate, produced this mixture in industrial quantities to react with a large amount of rock, found a way to control its rate and distribution of administration to the rock so that they could create fine features with it without mistake?

That kind of expert chemistry would be just as impressive as, if not more impressive than, the development of machine tools.

EDIT: Keep in mind that it's not a simple matter of mixing chemical A that works 2x as fast on a mineral, with twice as much chemical B that works 1x as fast on the other mineral. Not only does the prevalence of each mineral vary across the stone, but some very sophisticated knowledge of chemical kinetics is needed to account for how each chemical will speed/slow the effect of the other.

azdgari, I apologize if it is not obvious my hypothesis/position.I didn't know “ate away” was a technical term used in chemistry, I apologize for the misunderstanding.As a matter of fact “ate away” is not a term I would like to use, so can we use the term formed instead?Furthermore, YES, I am suggesting that they either found or produced a chemical or mixture of chemicals along with processes that formed the features of the diorite. But it is more complicated than that given your words “found a way to control its rate and distribution of administration to the rock so that they could create fine features”.I can only say this, given your words: YES, I am suggesting that they either found or produced a chemical or mixture of chemicals along with processes that formed the features of the diorite. In addition, the quantity of chemical needed to realize the features need not be industrial; the quantity of chemical only need be sufficient to realize the features of the diorite, weather they were working on all quantities of diorite or a very small quantity of diorite. So in short,my answer to your inference: no the quantity need not be industrial.

That kind of expert chemistry would be just as impressive as, if not more impressive than, the development of machine tools.

Given my background in machinery I can only say maybe these peoples used chemicals and chemical processes and understanding of chemical processes so much so that there was no need for the “development of machine tools” on an industrial scale.However, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me given the nature of these statements “None, if you are not going to discuss this rationally, then get out of the thread. I asked whether you'd taken chemistry before because you are making statements that are based on an ignorance of chemistry. That sort of behaviour is the chemistry equivalent of a creationist asking why we havn't found a Crockoduck fossil yet.”, unless of course you are a machinist.And to address the edit portion of your post above: I compliment you on your apparent understanding of the mindset of somebody who might use chemicals to achieve or realize features which may or may not be present in the diorite found at puma punku.Oh yeah, before I forget... who is to say that they made mistakes?p.s. I put vinegar and backing soda together once.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 09:48:02 PM by none »

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

"Formed" is a passable term, sure. Though "formed" involves ambiguity in whether the chemical is being used to create the diorite itself (not that this is possible at STP), or being used to "eat away at" (read: "react with") it. Right now it seems obvious that you mean the latter, but I see no reason to inject that ambiguity into the discussion at all.

Quote

Given my background in machinery I can only say maybe these peoples used chemicals and chemical processes and understanding of chemical processes so much so that there was no need for the “development of machine tools” on an industrial scale.

Given your background in machinery, you are going to make ignorant assumptions about chemistry. Notice that I havn't been doing the same thing re: machinery?

Quote

However, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me given the nature of these statements “None, if you are not going to discuss this rationally, then get out of the thread. I asked whether you'd taken chemistry before because you are making statements that are based on an ignorance of chemistry. That sort of behaviour is the chemistry equivalent of a creationist asking why we havn't found a Crockoduck fossil yet.”, unless of course you are a machinist.

So, I am not allowed to call you on your defiantly ignorant statements about chemistry, unless I am also a machinist. Right.

Quote

And to address the edit portion of your post above: I compliment you on your apparent understanding of the mindset of somebody who might use chemicals to achieve or realize features which may or may not be present in the diorite found at puma punku.

When have I made assertions about such peoples' mindsets? I made assertions about the technical feasibility of the task.

Quote

Oh yeah, before I forget... who is to say that they made mistakes?

Most people make mistakes. Maybe these people were different. Then again, I never made any assertions about their tendency (or lack thereof) to make mistakes.

I could care less whether slaves, skilled artisans, or trained monkeys made the blocks.

I'm interested in how they machined them. :shrug

I haven't found any information on this particular site.In fact, finding archeological images of precolumbian tools is somewhat difficult.I'm not an archeologist, I don't think there is one on the site, though it's possible that being a geologist Velkyn might have more experience in this arena than others.[1] The only thing that I can do, that anybody can do for the moment till there is better evidence of this particular culture is to look at the other masters of stone carving and see how they did it. See if the techniques can be extrapolated, perhaps as a paralell development.

What I was leading to in my other posts about engineers, architects and skilled artisans is that they were clever. It is my opinion that the modular nature of their designs leads me to believe that they used forms etensively. You can see from the clamps that they were perfectly comfortable putting peices of rock together to be worked.

{pumapunku}This explains how they were able to so cleanly match up surfaces together.

As for the interior portions of the cutouts, I will say: drills.

{Egypt: Granite}True, working in granite beggars the mind in terms of effort involved.However, using drills, and a shitload of patience they could have removed most of the material on the interior cut outs to a uniform depth, and then finished the work with fine detailed hand tools, and polished off any tool marks.

{Pumapunku}If you look closely, you can see that the marks here are not machine perfect, merely, very very good. That isn't what matters though, what matters, is showing that they had drills. they were able to drill right through the rock, and apparently they were also able to carve dead accurate grooves.

If you, again go to the Egyptian archeology sites, you'll see that they had stone saws.

{Egypt}

Quote

Here's a close up.Notice how crisp and parallel the edges are. The quality of this work indicates that the blade was held completely steady. Apparently, cutting basalt was not so slow and arduous that extra cuts like these would have been avoided as being an unnecessary waste of time. There are several places where overcuts like these can be seen. If you find this spot, look around behind you to the north - there are several more within 30 ft. In one place you can find many vertical parallel saw cuts right next to each other.

Obviously, speculation only goes so far.What I hope that I've done is to show that it's 'possible' in the sense that other cultures have machined stone to similar tolerances.

hehe.in any given human lifetime besides mine, whether it be long or short or extended or brief as compared to mine, is it possible with a little ingenuity and a limited amount of industrial process to affect the diorite found at puma punku using chemicals (or combinations of chemicals) or reactions of chemicals? and would you call the resultant effect a feature?

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

For some of the features, probably, though it'd be horribly inefficient and would require very sophisticated kinetic and thermodynamic knowledge. For others, I confidently assert that it is not possible. For example, these uniform holes:

...could not be made chemically.

Thus, for me the question is: Did they do it with chemicals and something else, or did they just use the "something else"? Occam's razor.

but the tools that may have been used are dependent upon the type of chemicals they may been using.for instance maybe there was a chemical that changed the properties of the diorite so that it was not necessary to use a graphite tipped drill but to get the desired result.

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Something to lower the hardness of the material? Interesting idea. I don't have the needed knowledge to decide whether it's possible or not, in this context. For now, I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Maybe. I'm not familiar with how it would be achieved, so I'm going to refrain from commenting on it.

Yes, I think it was none's thoughts on the matter. I was just pondering it. It doesn't sound likely to me.

This looks to me like it could have been done entirely with drills:

If this were wood, you could drill the vertical part, plane-off the material on one side until the drill shaft was half exposed, then drill the horizontal holes. At any rate, the small holes indicate that they had some kind of drilling technology.

How you would pull that off with stone and primitive tools is very tough to imagine. What we might be looking at in that photo might be the beginnings of a recessed carving that wasn't completed.

I'm thinking they might also have been able to score the rock and then use some serious chiseling along the scored lines. It would have to be a chisel that could be hammered, like this:

(Apologies if these thoughts have already been expressed, btw.)

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Until we can find a much higher technology in the region for say, a combustion engine or high output batteries to power the ... whatever lasers, grinders, sanders or whatever others speculate that they may have used to carve that stuff, I will stick to the obvious, proven, technologies that have been used elsewhere in ancient civilizations. I'm going for the simplest explanation, and all.

I have found a further internet link that fire has been used in ancient India for quarrying techniques to create cracks large enough to leverage granite blocks. Perhaps that was used here to some degree in the quarrying, but not for the fine surfaces on the finished stone.

I am astonished that you find it so difficult to accept that a prior culture could have used primitive technology to produce something wonderful and refined. I am astonished at you, because there are many examples of marvelous, exacting ancient stone craft from around the world, and I do not understand the reason for the reaction. Is any exactly other structure like this? No, it has several unique features. But, there is no reason why this structure should REQUIRE more advanced technology than others, just perhaps more skill or certain techniques using normal tools.

My speculation of their toolset: hammer, chisel, drill, lever, straightedges and geometry. Sweat and hard work. Perhaps fire, perhaps rope. Again, all of them ancient, all of them have been used in the past to create treasures, both massive and delicate.

When the anthropologist team discovers the perfectly balanced sintered diamond saw blades, and the 2000 rpm motors that drove them, or maybe the pneumatic hammers, I will absolutely bow to your wisdom on the matter.

Respectfully, you didn't answer the question I asked. Here it is again.

Are there any limits to what a person can make with a chisel in granite/diorite?

That's an important question, because the limits of what a chisel can do will lead us to what other kinds of tools are required to make the blocks. I don't know why people can't go through this step-by-step. Everyone just jumps to the standard answer

"They were only limited by their imagination and time".

That doesn't answer the question we are trying to answer, which is, what specific kinds of tooling they needed and how was it made 14,000 years ago. I'm not in any way saying it couldn't have been done, because it exists. But nobody has yet shown me the tools needed to make the blocks and how the tools were made with the state of the art 14,000 years ago. That's what has the experts stumped Jim. You have not answered the question at all yet. Do you think your answer would satisfy the experts that haven't been able to answer the question?

Hal, in my answer to you, I delivered my speculation for their toolset. Amongst those tools, I think, they created their marvel. Sans specific, found examples of the tools, it is hard to say exactly what they did with them.

What if we discover that they could make bronze chisels inset with a steel that was remarkably like modern carbide... say, some smithy found the ingredients to make small bits of it, and was aware of the tempering technique needed. Then, I'd say that yes, they could actually carve out the deep insets with it. You might have to reforge the chisel repeatedly, and reset the bit. But, if they did use drills, it would make more sense to deeply preforate where the inset would be, then knock out the stone between the holes with either hammer or hammer and chisel. If they only had bronze and no actual striking material, then they certainly couldn't chisel it at all.

But, if no steel or emery or similar is found in future digs, no evidence of trade that would support such materials, then I would be at odds to come up with something from what I know.

They made enough examples of stonework. I'd be willing to bet that the material used to create it will be discovered. I would also be very interested to see what microscopic examination of unweathered surfaces would show.

Watkins suggests ancient Inca stonemasons heated and cut stone by using a series of very large gold parabolic reflectors to concentrate and focus solar energy. He points to the Conquistador’s records mentioning an Inca golden dish so large, it spanned the length of two men

apologies if this has been mentioned, but one just needs harder stone than what one has, and granite and diorite vary in hardness depending on mineral content, crystal size, etc. A rope with quartz sand can cut granite. And yes, it takes a long time. I'm not seeing the problem here.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB